A Game of Thrones Mega Thread (No Book Discussion)

Um, how do you propose to discuss a show you haven't seen yet, without using any kind of spoilers? You can't talk about something you haven't seen, and you can't find out anything about it without reading spoilers.

I'm truly trying to understand the point of this thread.

ChaosTitan said:

Um, how do you propose to discuss a show you haven't seen yet, without using any kind of spoilers? You can't talk about something you haven't seen, and you can't find out anything about it without reading spoilers.

I'm truly trying to understand the point of this thread.

Click to expand...

There are a ton of users watching this TV series, some of whom are book readers (like me) and would like to have a spoiler discussion, and some of whom are first-timers and desperately want not to be spoiled. Thus far we've all been cohabiting in the Game of Thrones Mega Thread, but people are getting inadvertently spoiled. Hence two threads - a spoiler discussion and a no-spoilers discussion. Hope that's okay, Chaos.

That's a much better reason that Zoombie's inability to resist clicking on your posts.

Carry on.

So long as we refer to Oakenpecs by that name henceforth I think I'll be joining this thread. Only read the first book so far and am quite happy not to be a spoilermonkey. I was much more at risk of being spoiled than giving spoilers, anyhow!

I promise to be totally spoiler-free in this thread, except that I do second the motion that we continue to refer to Khal Drogo as Khal Horsehung Oakenpecs.

Now I am going to re-watch the latest episode while I clean. Huzzah!

Libbie said:

I promise to be totally spoiler-free in this thread, except that I do second the motion that we continue to refer to Khal Drogo as Khal Horsehung Oakenpecs.

Now I am going to re-watch the latest episode while I clean. Huzzah!

Click to expand...

A book-reading in-the-knower in our territory! She's a spy—a Dornish spy! *fetches spear*

*points accusingly* ah-HAH! How do you know the Dornish fight with spears...UNLESS YOU ARE ALSO A BOOK-READER?!

J'ACCUSE!

regdog said:

Word of advice from someone who knows, do not Google a character if they're mentioned here and you can't remember who they are. You'll ruin any surprises that are forthcoming.

Zoombie, I've never read the books, but I'm loving the series, it's a must see.

Click to expand...

This is a helpful spoiler-free chart of who's who and who they're related to. Hoo!

I recommend The Tower of the Hand as a reference site for first-timers. It has a great feature called scope where you can set the number of books you've read to avoid being spoiled. The scope is set by default to "no books read", so you can remind yourself who Benjen Stark is without fear of spoilers.

This is not a spoiler. Really. Especially since I don't know anything, nor does anyone (probably) other than Martin. But I'm surprised so little mention has been made of a mystery that seemed to me loomed large from day one.

Whose child is Jon Snow really? Ned Stark never told him one word about his mother, but promised near the start of the series he would tell the lad "everything" when next they saw one another. Under the circumstances (even more vividly clear at the moment) that would likely take some time, if ever. As a storyteller that set off alarms. Coupled with this...

Is Ned Stark really the kind of man to cheat on his wife? Think about that for a moment. And in that context, it really seems odd to me that he'd send Jon to the Wall. Why? Why not have him fostered by some great friend, like Jon Arryn or King Robert? As long as Jon Snow was at Winterfell, his existence was like a thorn in Catelyn's side. Is Ned Stark really the kind of man to cause his wife unnecessary pain? Well, is he?

I'm not claiming to know who Jon Snow's parents are. Ned Stark told him "You are my blood" and I believe him on that. But somehow, I doubt beyond words that Ned is Jon's father. Which leaves four other possibilities--Ned's father, one of his two brothers, or Ned's sister.

Something to think on...

It's true that Ned doesn't seem like the kind of guy to cheat on his wife. On the other hand, the characters in these books tend to surprise the reader by having very human moments of weakness, or by having sides to themselves that they don't reveal to too many people. soooooooo...who knows!

(I have my own as-good-as-certain ideas about Jon Snow's family, and I have every confidence that they will be proven right by future books at every level of detail. I'm that much of a nerdo over ASOIAF.)

I've thought about that. (And have managed to avoid seeing spoilers about it.)

If Ned Stark had come back from King's Landing (after the war that ended with Robert on the throne) bringing a child with no explanation of why, it might lead to questions.

But -- saying the child is a bastard, born of a mistress, attracts no attention. They're probably commonplace. (I did read somewhere that in Winterfell, "Snow" is the name given to children of no official parentage.)

So -- possibly the truth of Jon Snow's real parentage, if known, would be of import to more people than just him and Ned.

Yes, in the Game of Thrones milieu, all the various land holdings have "bastard names" for those born without respectable family names. They usually have something to do with the geography or "tourist attractions" of the area -- Snow, Rivers, Flowers, Stone, Sand, etc. It's kind of a cool construct. I wonder whether that's based on a real medieval practice. I know we still have "bastard" surnames surviving today. Aren't the "Fitz" prefixes indicative of bastardy? I can't remember. And I am too lazy to Google.

I've thought about that. (And have managed to avoid seeing spoilers about it.)

Click to expand...

There are no spoilers on this subject. We. Don't. Know.

But, based on some background material that eventually comes to light, a lot of folks have a theory about Jon Snow's parents. Me, I think the theory plausible but am confident Martin could surprise us all.

DavidZahir said:

There are no spoilers on this subject. We. Don't. Know.

Click to expand...

Well...we don't know, but in my opinion the "hints" that are in the book are pretty darn explicit. But they are subtle, and whiz right by you, and most people only pick all of them up on re-reads. Martin is a sly devil. But the hints are there, spread through several books, and they all corroborate one another. So I'd be really surprised if my little pet theory isn't correct. Which I have been espousing, by the way, for YEARS on fandom forums, and was previously laughed at and booed and hissed for believing. Now everybody else is onboard with me. Harumph!

(I read a review of A Dance With Dragons, and apparently far more obvious "hints" about Jon Snow's parentage are in that book.)

Here's my guess.

When Ned stood up to Robert against killing Danerys and her unborn child, he protested against the killing of children--and the Mad King's children were slaughtered in the nursery by Papa Lannister save the two that got away, yes?

Well, what if Ned saved one? What if somehow, the child's mother rescued him and gave him to Ned to smuggle out of King's Landing?

Yeah, I know. I doubt it. He did mention a girl's name when he and the King were eating outside early in the show. (a name I have since forgotten) But, considering how strict Ned is about his honor, I'm thinking he'd be more likely to save an otherwise doomed child, a child that would prove a threat to the security of his friend's throne, than to cheat on his wife who's pregnant back home with their firstborn. Just a thought.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm! That would be veeerrrry interesting. It would be in keeping with Ned's character to do something like that.

And its a good thought. But maybe too easy for Martin...

He did mention a girl's name when he and the King were eating outside early in the show. (a name I have since forgotten)

Click to expand...

Wylla.

mscelina said:

Here's my guess.

When Ned stood up to Robert against killing Danerys and her unborn child, he protested against the killing of children--and the Mad King's children were slaughtered in the nursery by Papa Lannister save the two that got away, yes?

Well, what if Ned saved one? What if somehow, the child's mother rescued him and gave him to Ned to smuggle out of King's Landing?

Yeah, I know. I doubt it. He did mention a girl's name when he and the King were eating outside early in the show. (a name I have since forgotten) But, considering how strict Ned is about his honor, I'm thinking he'd be more likely to save an otherwise doomed child, a child that would prove a threat to the security of his friend's throne, than to cheat on his wife who's pregnant back home with their firstborn. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Those murdered children (actually the Mad King's grandchildren) were Rhaenys (daughter) and Aegon (son). So in your scenario, Jon would be Aegon Targaryen, the heir to the throne, with a better claim even than Daenerys. That would certainly explain why Ned is so keen to hide his identity.

Let's all take a moment to appreciate the irony of Jon the bastard turning out to be the legitimate heir to the throne.

According to Targaryan custom, then, he should marry Danaerys!

Okay, on another subject--we all see the parallels with the Wars of the Roses, right? Consider some of the characters and how they correlate...

Edward IV = brilliant warlord and general who didn't know what to do with himself in peace, fell to drinking and womanizing. Eldest of three surviving brothers. Robert Barantheon yes?
Richard of York = leader of one side, who balked at the last moment from seizing the throne from Henry VI and thus condemned himself and one of his sons ultimately to death. Ned Stark.
Queen Margaret of Anjou = cruel, strong, fanatically devoted to her son. Cersei?
Earl of Warwick, the Kingmaker = wealthiest man in the realm, given to schemes and ruthless use of his own children as pawns. Tywin Lannister.
Richard III = third of a set of royal siblings, deformed and so despised. Okay do we really need to mention who this is?

It isn't one-on-one though. For example, Richard III wasn't really interested in women but only in power ("Love foreswore me in my mother's womb"). More, while brilliant at getting the throne had no notion at all (at least in Shakespeare's play) of what to do with it. He made a terrible king for that reason. Reminds me of Cersei, honestly. The real Richard Gloster, on the other hand, comes across as more like Ned Stark--a dour individual devoted to his friends and family, betrayed in the end by other lords. He was even called the "Lord of the North"!

Is this no book at all, or can I bring up something from early in the first book, that we're already past in the TV series?

DreamWeaver said:

Is this no book at all, or can I bring up something from early in the first book, that we're already past in the TV series?

Click to expand...

Hmmm...my understanding is that since it's already happened in the TV series, it would be fair for discussion. But I don't know. You could always private-message one of us superfans and ask for a no-spoilers explanation/discussion if you're not sure, I guess.